How many more will come forward?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Palestinian Jew, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    How many more Bush staffers and cabinet members are going to come forward to say Bush was looking for any way into iraq before republicans finally admit it?

    Bush is one of the worst presidents ever. Misleading a country into a totally unnecessary war is completely wrong. Its pitiful that he calls himself a christian. Saddam Hussein had no connections to al queda, he was not planning any attack on the U.S., the people of Iraq didn't support Saddam: it was not a danger to he U.S. I now believe that Bush deceived the country and the senators with handpicked intelligence on WMD and misleadings about Iraq-9/11 connections.

    Does anyone actually believe the Bush lie about faulty intelligence? The CIA and Bush knew that there weren't any WMDs, in Tenet's speech about the failure of WMD in Iraq he also said that the CIA did know about Libya giving up its WMD beforehand and that it did posess WMD, so how could they not know that in all of Iraq, there weren't any WMDs to be had? They knew.

    Attacking Iraq was a failure in the war on terror. The only link to training terrorists was a training camp in KURDISH CONTROLLED TERRITORY. Just as Mr. Clarke said, there is not and has never been a connection between alqueda and Iraq.

    The newest Bush lie is it was always about the "liberation". Wrong. Enough senators have said that they wouldn't have voted to go to war if the WMD issue was given. Paul Wolfowitz said liberating Iraq wasn't enough of an issue alone to risk American lives. And if Bush had spent more time on the relationships between the ethnicities of Iraq then bragging about not reading the newspaper, we might not be in the total mess we are in. The Iraqis will not be liberated. They hate each other.

    I liked Mr. Clarkes analogy of the situation: Its like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I guess that depends on how many people decide they want to sell their books. O'neill did the same thing and made outrageous claims. That was many months ago, why has he not produced any of the thousands of documents he claims he has to backup what he say's?

    I think a former high ranking official leaving the government and then trying to make money off of his political woes is pathetic. Funny that this Clarke fellow now blames Bush when just 2 years ago he was blaming Clinton. I guess blaming the sitting president will sell more books. :rolleyes:
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    Is it just me or alot of Democrats just plain old stupid? trying to explain something to them is like potty training a one year old baby, it just aint happening. Sen. Kennedy used the words that G.W. always is blamed for today on the tv. I dont hear the dems saying anything about that. It was also interesting to watch an hour-long show that was question and answer , the moderator asks the ? and the Sen. gives the answers, well it was an hour of no answers just political gooble-degook. no matter what was asked it was side-stepped in an all out effort to slam G.W. even when Lies were pointed out that Kennedy himself made. Kerry learned has trade from the true master of talking without saying anything
     
  4. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Or attacking Germany after Pearl Harbor. Germany didn't attack us but we went to war with them first. Thy had nothing to do with Japan. Germany wasn't at war with us before we went to war with Japan. AQ is a terror orginization that needs govt. sympathetic to it's cause. Saddam was sympathetic. Saddam was a risk, if not now then later.
     
  5. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    Exactly. No one cares about how Democrats made the same claims about Iraq's weapons. We're they lying too, or maybe Bush tricked them from 1998 to now? :rolleyes:

    And no one seems to want to address this one either:


     
  6. wade
    Online

    wade Guest

    Ratings:
    +0


    Ummm... you should at least do some minimal research before making such statements. A simple google search on "German US declaration war wwII " would have shown you that it was Germany that declared war on the USA on Dec. 11th, 1941. This was in accordance with an existing treaty between Germany and Japan. Had Hitler chosen not to honor the treaty, the USA would undoubtedly have had to focus on Japan first.

    Your other assertations are equally uninformed. Al-Queda was diametrically opposed to Saddam, they considered him a bad Moslim and rejoiced when the USA focused on Iraq for war. This is exactly what they wanted as it would surely polarize the remaining Arab States against the USA and will undoubtedly lead to a fundamentalist regime in Iraq.

    Wade.
     
  7. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    welcome to the board wade
     
  8. wade
    Online

    wade Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Thank you DKS, I happened accross it last night while conducting various research.

    BTW: Before I start being called a "liberal" (as if that would be a bad thing), let me point out that I'm not opposed to the diposing of Saddam. However I am opposed to being decieved by our own Government.

    Personally, I think we should have simply handled Saddam with a small volley of carefully timed and targeted neutron bombs. W/o warning, Saddam and the Baath party leaders, and his base of support of Tikrit could have been eliminated. There would have been little or no destruction of infrastructure. And the political fallout would have been less than what we are suffering from this extended, extremely expensive, and pointless war.

    But... there would have been no oil profits and no ability to funnel US tax money into the hands of the right criminals.

    Also, I feel that if we are going to do this because Saddam was such a bad guy, which is the position the Bush Administration and his conservative mindless lackey base are now trying to claim as an post-facto alternate justification, we should apply such a policy to all the despot regimes in the world, not just the one that has oil booty.

    Just my opinion.

    Wade.
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Welcome to the board, Wade!

    Just out of curiousity. You stated in your first paragraph that you don't like being deceived by your own government. I'm assuming that's in direct reference to the Iraq intelligence and subsequent invasion.

    Yet you go on to say you would have targeted them with neutron bombs.

    If we were deceived, and there wasn't a threat like they stated, why the need for the neutron bombs?
     
  10. wade
    Online

    wade Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Very good point.

    What I meant was if we are going to play the regime change game, which is another topic for debate, we should do it in the most sensible manner possible. I'm not opposed to having toppled Iraq's corrupt regime, there are several others that I think we should also topple.

    But if we are going to do such things, it needs to be done in an altruistic manner. That means minimizing the loss of innocent life, and the suffering of innocent people. Which in turn means excising the cancer (dictatorial regime) as quickly and with as little collateral and infrastructure damage as possible, AND NOT PROFITING FROM THE RESULT!

    Somolia, North Korea, etc... are all nations that need to be freed from tyranni. Of course, if we go down that road, we need to also deal with the PRC, and that is one tough nut to crunch.

    Wade.
     

Share This Page